This is an interesting question and a tricky one of course.

Let me try to share some thoughts.

1. Even though reviewers spend time and expertise, they also have opportunity to learn new things. So there is some gains already.

2. Some form of payment can be motivating though.

3. How? It should be based on the contract such that editors will expect a certain minimum quality of work.

4. There might be the risk of money taking over the quality of reviews.

Those are my opinion

This is an interesting question and a tricky one of course.

Let me try to share some thoughts.

1. Even though reviewers spend time and expertise, they also have opportunity to learn new things. So there is some gains already.

2. Some form of payment can be motivating though.

3. How? It should be based on the contract such that editors will expect a certain minimum quality of work.

4. There might be the risk of money taking over the quality of reviews.

Those are my opinion

Yes, this is very fiddly.

I agree with Alex to some extent especially with the fact that reviewers also gain some more experience in the review process. In attention, it also boost their credentials since they have the opportunity of adding that to journals reviewed in their CVs.

Conversely, is that it is quite difficult to generalize the option to pay reviewers for all journals. this is because some of the journals do not charge any processing fee or pages for publications and hence in terms of these journals, it will be difficult for them to pay or remit reviewers. However for those who charge such processing fees, such payments may be justified.

Caution: we should however be careful as Alex reiterated not to allow money override quality

I think that Reviewers who invest their time and intellectual expertise to review a work must be paid for there contribution, particularly, from those journals which charge money from the authors in the name of processing cost. However, this would also adversely affect the authors, because then these journals will increase the amount of money they charge....so a balance has to be struck.....

I personally have found reviewing of articles very inciting and never thought of the monetary factor, although some journals charge very high fees fro publication. Such journals can compensate reviewers minimally so that the monetary consideration does not become an snare or trap for academic review of articles for publication.

In my opinion, if the journal publishes paper for free, the whole Review procedure should be also for free. But if there is a fee for publishing - the Reviewers should be paid. That would be fair!

I believe it will be a conflict of interest. I do it as part of the service to the profession, as required by my university, College, and department.

In my opinion the reviewer should not be paid any money for reviewing any book or article as it is a part of his academic contribution besides adding to his professional credentials. Of course contributions to other print media such as news papers , popular journals/ magazines will not attract this provision. A person writing for popular magazines should have no hesitation in accepting payment for his contribution.

reviewer should not be compensated in monetary terms. Moment money considerations enter into picture, quality is likely to suffer. There may be a pressure to do the job just for the sake of money !

By reviewing, we also enhance the prestige and esteem of the profession. The intellectual work needs different forms of appreciation than monetary basis.

Open-access publishing calls for the charging of article handling charges or publication fees because the Publishers are unable to make money from open-access, generally speaking. However, it is also common knowledge that some journal Publishers charge very high fees relative to others. I observe that there are some Publishers who reward their reviewers from the fees they charge while others simply say thank you. I do not suggest that reviewers should seek monetary rewards for their work, but I challenge the Publishers who charge so high fees to be moderate with their fees. The range of publication fees are quiet too wide.

"Paradoxically, article publication which is universally recognized as a research output cannot be properly accomplished without formal peer review. Most researchers and research institutions agree that peer review provides essential control. Despite this, and the fact that researchers spend a considerable amount of time and effort performing peer review, there is no universal appreciation for this essential activity...

Enabling public (and universal) recognition

Of course, researchers referee for journals published by many different academic publishers. A complete profile such as the publication history tool provided by Scopus paves the way to a universal acknowledgement of researchers’ peer review activities. Together with our colleagues in Mendeley we have embarked on the challenging task of transforming this vision into a reality. To do so we have been working on adding a new feature to Mendeley profiles which lists both the peer review activities that are captured by ORCiD’s peer review history tool (which captures referees’ activities for journals directly without their having to manually “claim”), as well as those from Elsevier’s submission systems. (Of course in doing so we have taken extra care in respecting the confidentiality of peer review process.)..."

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/reviewers-update/a-round-of-applause-for-reviewers

To keep the tradition, they should not be compensated.

The questioning is very interesting. I see that there will always be new PhDs who want to start their careers, and therefore do not care about the lack of payments for revisions of Newspapers / Congresses. However, I believe that the more complex texts that aspired to be published in Magazines of high impact and that may require weeks of revision, undoubtedly require remuneration.

I think yes. This would also be helpful in speeding up the review process.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_have_any_solution_for_speed_up_the_scientific_peer_review_process

If you compensate someone, then you need to hire them. If you hire someone, then you need to interview them. If you interview them and hire them, you will need to assess their perfornance! Do you still think it is a good idea to hire true scholars!

Previewing an article takes a lot of time and effort on the part of the reviewer. Unfortunately, reviewers in our universities are terribly underpayed for reviewing researches due to be published in journals. I think compensating reviewers will encourage them to seriously review papers and this will consequently contribute in the quality of reaearches in all fields.

It depends on the journals. In most international journals, reviewers are not financially compensated. I think they should not be compensated as they gain the new trends in knowledge and it is the best compensation for them. While reviewers are usually high educated and knowledgeable people, I think they look for what feeds their minds rather than what feeds their stomachs.

For a free journal and open access. the reviewer can give a little of his time for free.

For a paid journal and not open access. the reviewer must have a profits.

Interesting question, I think Journal should include reviewers names somewhere to acknowledge them about the proofreading/revision work

Should academics be paid for peer review?

As the number of papers needing review increases, journals are thinking of replacing a voluntary system with cash rewards...

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/should-academics-be-paid-for-peer-review